Chapter 31 Remind them to be subject to sovereignties, to authorities; to be yielding, and to be ready for every good work,2 to be calumniating no one, to be pacific, lenient, displaying all meekness toward all humanity.3 For wealso were once foolish, stubborn, deceived, slaves of various desires and gratifications, leading a life in malice and envy, detestable, hating one another.4 Yet when the kindness and fondness for humanity of our Saviour, God, made its advent...........

I have bolded the verb that is translated as "abounded" in the KJV here in the Greek text along with its parsing information. Notice the V-AAI. This is telling us that it is a Verb, Aorist Tense, Active Voice and Indicative Mood. The key here is the Aorist Tense. This tense means something happened (past tense).

Now, Tony claims that the aorist, active, indicative should be interpreted as PRESENT tense. As you can see the two different views have profound consequences towards the meaning of the verse.

The translation of Young's Literal Translation indicates to me that where sin abounded (past tense) - meaning where sin at one time abounded at that location is where afterwards, Grace has more abounded.

When I read Tony's verse it says to me that there sin is abounding (present tense) is where (Grace is also more abounding). Now even if you believe we are not to continue in sin, that verse as Tony presents it shows that one would still have MORE Grace even if they did continue in sin.

I believe that translation of Tony's is in error. I desire Tony to show me of those Greek Grammars that he claims interprets aorist, active, indicative as PRESENT Tense. So Tony if you read this post, please provide a specific link that references such. I will provide here one that shows aorist is past tense (notice chart in the middle of the page):

20 Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing. Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds,21 that, even as Sin reigns in death, thus Grace also should be reigning through righteousness, for life eonian, through Jesus

Jesus IS WAS and WILL BE...... follow along:

Chapter 6 1 What, then, shall we declare? That we may be persisting in sin that grace should be increasing?2 May it not be coming to that! We, who died to sin, how shall we still be living in it?3 Or are you ignorant that whoever are baptized into Christ Jesus, are baptized into His death?4 We, then, were entombed together with Him through baptism into death, that, even as Christ was roused from among the dead through the glory of the Father, thus we also should be walking in newness of life.

so it is INDEED present tense as the object of the topic is us dieing to sin INCHRIST. and US NOT persisting ""in sin"" even though that GRACE is STILL increasing. and WILL increase till the end.

See the problem I see is his interpretation of the verse. That present tense is the problem. Again, here is Tony's version:

Rom 5:20 Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing. Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds,

Here is the version from Young's Literal Translation:

Rom 5:20 And law came in, that the offence might abound, and where the sin did abound, the grace did overabound,

Now if the meaning is present tense then Young's Literal Translation would use the word "does" instead of did. Here is the Greek parsing based on WH:Paul

trettep, it is not in error but shows the aorist:

"In "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light ofHistorical Research" Prof. Robertson has this to say regarding thetranslation of the Aorist into English: "The Greek Aorist ind., ascan be readily seen, is not the exact equivalent of any tense inany other language. It has {nuances} all its own, many of themdifficult, or well nigh impossible to reproduce in English. Wemerely do the best we can in English to translate in one way oranother the total result of a word, context and tense. Certainlyone cannot say that the English translations have been successfulwith the Greek Aorist...(Page 847). The English past willtranslate the Greek aorist in many cases where we prefer `have'...(Page 848). The Greek aorist and the English past do not exactlycorrespond....The Greek aorist covers much more ground than theEnglish past...The aorist in Greek is so rich in meaning that theEnglish labors and groans to express it. As a matter of fact theGreek aorist is translatable into almost every English tenseexcept the imperfect..." Again, "The aorist is, strictly speaking,timeless."

"As this is the latest and most authoritative work on thegrammar of the New Testament, it is evident that Dr. Weymouth'ssuggestion has not been deemed a satisfactory solution and thatthe translation of the aorist into English is in a mostunsatisfactory state notwithstanding all the efforts of modernscholarship.

"In view of this self-confessed failure, any attempt at thesolution of so grave a defect in our method of translation shouldbe welcomed and examined on its own merits.

"Dr. Weymouth, in his pamphlet "On the Rendering into Englishof the Greek Aorist and Perfect" criticizes the Revised Versionfor its treatment of the aorist. Falling in with the prevailingtendency, they had changed

p188 Weymouth Prefers the Perfect as a Rendering of the Aorist

many renderings which are in the "perfect" (using HAVE) to thepast tense. In fact they, generally speaking, regarded the aoristas referring to the past. Dr. Weymouth noted how often it makespoor English, and felt, in an indefinite way, that the aorist mustnot be confined to the past. He would have it rendered by the"perfect," as it often is in the Authorized Version, at the sametime translating the perfect in this way as well. But if theaorist is I-HAVE-LOVED and the Perfect also is I-HAVE-LOVED, whatis the difference between them? After all, the chief function of atranslation is to preserve the distinctions of the original. If apainter should copy a picture of sheep and goats and draw them allalike, he may produce a pretty picture, but an abominable copy.There are sharp boundaries between all the forms of the Greek verbas we shall see, and they should be distinguished as far aspossible.

"Weymouth pleads for the perfect, as a rendering of the Greekaorist because it has a bearing on the present, which the past hasnot. He protests that "it is too commonly believed and taught thatthe Greek Aorist Indicative...is equivalent to the Simple PastTense in English (I {wrote}, I {loved}, I {brought}...) "Heaffirms that "the English Past, used according to the {trueEnglish idiom}, will largely fail to coincide with the Aorist..."He makes the startling discovery that we give the English Presentthe force of a Future, giving the following examples: "We {start}tomorrow," "The king {comes} here tonight." He might have addedthe fact that this same "present" is used of the past also, as in"The king {comes} here since he was crowned."

"He was on the verge of discovering that the English "Present"is not a present at all but a true past-future indefinite. He evengives examples where the Present must be used, as, "The Chronicle{states}--," "Clarendon {records}--," "Gibbon {informs} us--." Theone instance he gives for the past in narrative is found in Acts25:14: "Festus {declared}." But the Greek word here used has noneof the characteristics of the true aorist at all-

p189 Weymouth Prefers the Perfect as a Rendering of the Aorist

except the sign of the past. {Etheto} is a simple past, and shouldbe rendered "Festus {submitted} Paul's case to the king."

"To prove that the aorist is not a simple past he gives thefollowing instances in which both the A. V. and the Revisersrender it by the perfect: We add the C. V. rendering to show thatit can usually be still better rendered by the so-called English"present."

Matt.5:21,27 Ye {have heard} that it was said C. V. You {hear} that it was declaredMark 10:20 All these things I {have observed} C. V. I {maintain} all these things fromRev.14:8 Babylon is fallen, is fallen C. V. It falls! It falls! Babylon

"The perfect limits the {action} to the past just as much asthe past tense does. In these and all other instances of theaorist the action is not confined to the past.

"Weymouth then makes the welcome admission that "{aorist}means {indefinite}, and we must bow to the authority of the Greekgrammarians who held that name to be a suitable one...." This isprecisely the point for which we contend.

"He then gives examples where he thinks the aorist should berendered by the pluperfect and the translators have so given it.

Matt.1:24 As the angel {had bidden} him C. V. As the messenger {bids} himMatt.11:1 When {he had made} an {end} C. V. When Jesus {finishes}Matt.27:31 When they {had mocked} Him

C. V. And when they {deride} HimMatt.26:19 As Jesus {had appointed} them C. V. As Jesus {instructs} themMark 1:32 When the sun {had set} C. V. When the sun {sets}

"The following is a step in the right direction: "{The Aoristis often used where our idiom demands the Present}...but thisGnomic Aorist (as in James 1:11, "for the sun {rises}." etc.) andthe Epistolary Aorist (2 Cor.

p190 The Concordant Method of Solving the Problem

8:18, we {send} with him the brother") need not here be enlargedupon." Weymouth touches the true sense of the aorist here, but,alas, he did not enlarge upon it! He recognizes its use in thestatement of general truths or proverbs (the Gnomic Aorist). Thevery fact that it can be used of things which are true at alltimes and that English uses the "present" for this purpose issufficient to identify them.

"Those who suppose that the English of our versions is beyondreproach will be shocked when he states that "the persistentrendering of the Greek Aorist by the English simple Past in the R.V. of the N. T. has one very undesirable effect--that {thetranslation is not English}." (Unsearchable Riches, vol.13)

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.

trettep

20 Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing. Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds,21 that, even as Sin reigns in death, thus Grace also should be reigning through righteousness, for life eonian, through Jesus

Jesus IS WAS and WILL BE...... follow along:

Chapter 6 1 What, then, shall we declare? That we may be persisting in sin that grace should be increasing?2 May it not be coming to that! We, who died to sin, how shall we still be living in it?3 Or are you ignorant that whoever are baptized into Christ Jesus, are baptized into His death?4 We, then, were entombed together with Him through baptism into death, that, even as Christ was roused from among the dead through the glory of the Father, thus we also should be walking in newness of life.

so it is INDEED present tense as the object of the topic is us dieing to sin INCHRIST. and US NOT persisting ""in sin"" even though that GRACE is STILL increasing. and WILL increase till the end.

ok, i understand your point, do you understand mine?

and thanks for the link.

peace brochuckt

Chuck, I see the next verse has the same problem of quoting in the present tense verses the past. Consider this from YLT:

Rom 5:21 that even as the sin did reign in the death, so also the grace may reign, through righteousness, to life age-during, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

What version are you quoting from by the way?

Paul

Logged

trettep

"In "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light ofHistorical Research" Prof. Robertson has this to say regarding thetranslation of the Aorist into English: "The Greek Aorist ind., ascan be readily seen, is not the exact equivalent of any tense inany other language. It has {nuances} all its own, many of themdifficult, or well nigh impossible to reproduce in English. Wemerely do the best we can in English to translate in one way oranother the total result of a word, context and tense. Certainlyone cannot say that the English translations have been successfulwith the Greek Aorist...(Page 847). The English past willtranslate the Greek aorist in many cases where we prefer `have'...(Page 848). The Greek aorist and the English past do not exactlycorrespond....The Greek aorist covers much more ground than theEnglish past...The aorist in Greek is so rich in meaning that theEnglish labors and groans to express it. As a matter of fact theGreek aorist is translatable into almost every English tenseexcept the imperfect..." Again, "The aorist is, strictly speaking,timeless."

"As this is the latest and most authoritative work on thegrammar of the New Testament, it is evident that Dr. Weymouth'ssuggestion has not been deemed a satisfactory solution and thatthe translation of the aorist into English is in a mostunsatisfactory state notwithstanding all the efforts of modernscholarship.

"In view of this self-confessed failure, any attempt at thesolution of so grave a defect in our method of translation shouldbe welcomed and examined on its own merits.

"Dr. Weymouth, in his pamphlet "On the Rendering into Englishof the Greek Aorist and Perfect" criticizes the Revised Versionfor its treatment of the aorist. Falling in with the prevailingtendency, they had changed

p188 Weymouth Prefers the Perfect as a Rendering of the Aorist

many renderings which are in the "perfect" (using HAVE) to thepast tense. In fact they, generally speaking, regarded the aoristas referring to the past. Dr. Weymouth noted how often it makespoor English, and felt, in an indefinite way, that the aorist mustnot be confined to the past. He would have it rendered by the"perfect," as it often is in the Authorized Version, at the sametime translating the perfect in this way as well. But if theaorist is I-HAVE-LOVED and the Perfect also is I-HAVE-LOVED, whatis the difference between them? After all, the chief function of atranslation is to preserve the distinctions of the original. If apainter should copy a picture of sheep and goats and draw them allalike, he may produce a pretty picture, but an abominable copy.There are sharp boundaries between all the forms of the Greek verbas we shall see, and they should be distinguished as far aspossible.

"Weymouth pleads for the perfect, as a rendering of the Greekaorist because it has a bearing on the present, which the past hasnot. He protests that "it is too commonly believed and taught thatthe Greek Aorist Indicative...is equivalent to the Simple PastTense in English (I {wrote}, I {loved}, I {brought}...) "Heaffirms that "the English Past, used according to the {trueEnglish idiom}, will largely fail to coincide with the Aorist..."He makes the startling discovery that we give the English Presentthe force of a Future, giving the following examples: "We {start}tomorrow," "The king {comes} here tonight." He might have addedthe fact that this same "present" is used of the past also, as in"The king {comes} here since he was crowned."

"He was on the verge of discovering that the English "Present"is not a present at all but a true past-future indefinite. He evengives examples where the Present must be used, as, "The Chronicle{states}--," "Clarendon {records}--," "Gibbon {informs} us--." Theone instance he gives for the past in narrative is found in Acts25:14: "Festus {declared}." But the Greek word here used has noneof the characteristics of the true aorist at all-

p189 Weymouth Prefers the Perfect as a Rendering of the Aorist

except the sign of the past. {Etheto} is a simple past, and shouldbe rendered "Festus {submitted} Paul's case to the king."

"To prove that the aorist is not a simple past he gives thefollowing instances in which both the A. V. and the Revisersrender it by the perfect: We add the C. V. rendering to show thatit can usually be still better rendered by the so-called English"present."

Matt.5:21,27 Ye {have heard} that it was said C. V. You {hear} that it was declaredMark 10:20 All these things I {have observed} C. V. I {maintain} all these things fromRev.14:8 Babylon is fallen, is fallen C. V. It falls! It falls! Babylon

"The perfect limits the {action} to the past just as much asthe past tense does. In these and all other instances of theaorist the action is not confined to the past.

"Weymouth then makes the welcome admission that "{aorist}means {indefinite}, and we must bow to the authority of the Greekgrammarians who held that name to be a suitable one...." This isprecisely the point for which we contend.

"He then gives examples where he thinks the aorist should berendered by the pluperfect and the translators have so given it.

Matt.1:24 As the angel {had bidden} him C. V. As the messenger {bids} himMatt.11:1 When {he had made} an {end} C. V. When Jesus {finishes}Matt.27:31 When they {had mocked} Him

C. V. And when they {deride} HimMatt.26:19 As Jesus {had appointed} them C. V. As Jesus {instructs} themMark 1:32 When the sun {had set} C. V. When the sun {sets}

"The following is a step in the right direction: "{The Aoristis often used where our idiom demands the Present}...but thisGnomic Aorist (as in James 1:11, "for the sun {rises}." etc.) andthe Epistolary Aorist (2 Cor.

p190 The Concordant Method of Solving the Problem

8:18, we {send} with him the brother") need not here be enlargedupon." Weymouth touches the true sense of the aorist here, but,alas, he did not enlarge upon it! He recognizes its use in thestatement of general truths or proverbs (the Gnomic Aorist). Thevery fact that it can be used of things which are true at alltimes and that English uses the "present" for this purpose issufficient to identify them.

"Those who suppose that the English of our versions is beyondreproach will be shocked when he states that "the persistentrendering of the Greek Aorist by the English simple Past in the R.V. of the N. T. has one very undesirable effect--that {thetranslation is not English}." (Unsearchable Riches, vol.13)

Thanks for the detail Tony. I see those comments if pertaining to the validity of the subject verses as being in error and the translation error. Obviously, Dr. Young disagreed with the rendering of your verse as well. I highly regard Dr. Young. So this matter of translation has profound consequences on what we believe. I'm assuming your version is the Concordant Literal Version? I happen to agree with many things about the Concordant Method as I have read before but if this is it's outcome then either the method or the underlying initial analysis is in error in my opinion.

But I appreciate you giving me this information Tony as it was insightful and may explain why others I have discussed this subject with have had such different opinions on it.

Paul

Logged

DaughterofDavid

"Thanks for the detail Tony. I see those comments if pertaining to the validity of the subject verses as being in error and the translation error. Obviously, Dr. Young disagreed with the rendering of your verse as well. I highly regard Dr. Young. So this matter of translation has profound consequences on what we believe. I'm assuming your version is the Concordant Literal Version? I happen to agree with many things about the Concordant Method as I have read before but if this is it's outcome then either the method or the underlying initial analysis is in error in my opinion.

But I appreciate you giving me this information Tony as it was insightful and may explain why others I have discussed this subject with have had such different opinions on it.

Paul"

*************************

Hi Paul,

As I have been reading your ongoing comments/conversation with Tony and others regarding the interpretation of WHY grace abounds....I find it interesting that both of you have given 'proof' from scholarly translators of the Word....and yet both come to 2 different conclusions.

Hmmm.

This is a perfect example of the letter of the Word versus the Spirit of the Word....for the Letter has now been thoroughly parsed ....but what does the Spirit of Truth have to say?

I guess this is where each person has to be led by the Spirit of Truth for himself/herself....

My prayer is that all believers would be in agreement that we would not want to continue in sin or practice sin when we know THE PRICE that our beloved Lord had to pay in order to free us of/from sin.

For me, the person who thinks it's okay to live as you wish and grace will cover it . .. is the same who still doesn't understand that to live in that thinking is not pursuing Christ. When I pursue Christ . . .when I just let him live in me . . . when I let him be in my DAILY thoughtlife, as well as my nightlife . . .when I read of him, worship to him, just ramble around with him . . .then the deeds in me that are subpar are covered by grace as I walk in him. There's no need to try to step as he steps . . .if my eyes are on him, my feet will follow and I may even step in a cow pie occasionally . . .but both the Father and myself are oblivious to that because regardless of what I step in thorugh out my day, my relationship with him will continually wash me, cleanse me, and I don't even need to be always aware of it.

I do agree with this; however, grace will cover it (even though it's not "okay" to live this way). Another problem other than the one you've stated here is that we still reap what we sow to the flesh in the flesh, so we can't mock God. This will slow his progress of transformation in our lives, and how much "hell" (death) do we really want to reap from approaching things this way? God will burn this stuff out of us, no matter what or how long it takes...

« Last Edit: March 11, 2009, 12:51:07 AM by Doc »

Logged

God does not instruct us to pray to change His mind. He wants us to pray so that we'll know His mind.

"Prayer doesn't change God, it changes me." --C.S. Lewis

God never had or needed a Plan B. He's still on Plan A.

Res Veritas Loquitur

trettep

As I have been reading your ongoing comments/conversation with Tony and others regarding the interpretation of WHY grace abounds....I find it interesting that both of you have given 'proof' from scholarly translators of the Word....and yet both come to 2 different conclusions.

Hmmm.

This is a perfect example of the letter of the Word versus the Spirit of the Word....for the Letter has now been thoroughly parsed ....but what does the Spirit of Truth have to say?

I guess this is where each person has to be led by the Spirit of Truth for himself/herself....

My prayer is that all believers would be in agreement that we would not want to continue in sin or practice sin when we know THE PRICE that our beloved Lord had to pay in order to free us of/from sin.

With head bowed low....I am so grateful.

Shalom,DaughterofDavid

Well we can still analyze this in light of scripture that we can see the inconsistency of translating it as the present tense. Consider here the very first place we find the aorist, active, indicative in the New Testament:

The word "begat" that I have bolded is aorist, active, indicative and has the same Greek parsing as the word abounded in in the dicussed verse of Romans. Now does it make any sense to translate that as Present tense?

Here is the verse though from the Concordant Literal Version in the Present tense:

I like many of the comments, bros and sis's IMO, this passage is an excellent summary of the law, the promise to Abraham that was to THE SEED (singular) Jesus, and what He does for us through His death, blood, resurrection, and grace..if anyone wants to focus on works, that's between them and God...but I will resist a yoke of bondage...I will seek for my yoke to be the yoke of Jesus, Who took my sin and suffering and nailed it to the cross...and Who will lead me into His righteousness...which will as its own fruit, be seeking to please Him..."on Christ the Solid Rock"...

And I LOVE the CLT version of the next verses that further explain it further...BEAUTIFUL!

16 Now to Abraham the promises were declared, and to his Seed. He is not saying "And to seeds," as of many, but as of One: And to "your Seed," which is Christ.17 Now this am I saying: a covenant, having been ratified before by God, the law, having come four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not invalidate,18 so as to nullify the promise. For if the enjoyment of the allotment is of law, it is no longer of promise. Yet God has graciously granted it to Abraham through the promise.19 What, then, is the law? On behalf of transgressions was it added, until the Seed should come to Whom He has promised, being prescribed through messengers in the hand of a mediator.20 Now there is no Mediator of one. Yet God is One.21 Is the law, then, against the promises of God? May it not be coming to that! For if a law were given that is able to vivify, really, righteousness were out of law.22 But the scripture locks up all together under sin, that the promise out of Jesus Christ's faith may be given to those who are believing.23 Now before the coming of faith we were garrisoned under law, being locked up together for the faith about to be revealed.24 So that the law has become our escort to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.25 Now, at the coming of faith, we are no longer under an escort,26 for you are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus.

And Paul, you can dissect the word to death and argue over tenses and verbs and everything else, but that will not bring life to the hearer, but the point of that passage; that Grace is always stronger than sin will bring life...

Logged

God does not instruct us to pray to change His mind. He wants us to pray so that we'll know His mind.

DaughterofDavid

Does anyone really believe that Abraham was still begetting Isaac while Isaac was begetting Jacob?

Paul"***************

You make a good point....and I also want to add what Dr. Young writes regarding the Hebrews view of past and present....

"The Hebrews were in the habit of using the past tense to express the certainty of an action taking place, even though the action might not really be performed for some time. And

That the Hebrews, in referring to events which might be either past or future were accustomed to act on the principle of transferring themselves mentally to the period and place of the events themselves, and were not content with coldly viewing them as those of a bygone or still coming time; hence the very frequent use of the present tense." (pg. IV).

Bottomline though...one does not need to be grammatically correct to be LED by the Holy Spirit....and if one thinks that it is ok to keep sinning and practice sinning then as John says....

"1Jn 2:1 1-2 I write these things to you (may I call you "my children" - for that's how I think of you), to help you to avoid sin. But if a man should sin, remember that our advocate before the Father is Jesus Christ the righteous, the one who made personal atonement for our sins (and for those of the rest of the world as well).

1Jn 2:3 3-6 It is only when we obey God's laws that we can be quite sure that we really know him. The man who claims to know God but does not obey his laws is not only a liar but lives in self-delusion. In practice, the more a man learns to obey God's laws the more truly and fully does he express his love for him. Obedience is the test of whether we really live "in God" or not. The life of a man who professes to be living in God must bear the stamp of Christ."

It seems to me, obeying God is evidence of His presence and all that entails in the believer, more so than a means to obtain it. Tongue and groove . So again, IMO, if I seek Jesus with all my heart, and I abide in Him and Him in me, He will both lead and empower me to do His will...authoring, and finishing. Focus on losing myself in Jesus, being filled with the Spirit...the fruits of the Spirit are.....